Student B : What has she done ? Student A : What has she done to the frog.
e. Confirm or Negate Response
It refers to a response in form of confirmation or negation. A „yes’ confirmation response is usually short e.g.:
Student A : Yes I see.....what about his hair ? Student B : His hair...
Student A : Yes 4. Follow up
It refers to information about whether the communication modifications have been succesful or not. In a long negotiation of meaning, interlocutors usually repeat the
signal –response exchange until an agreement is achieved. In short negotiation of
meaning sequence, two kinds of follow-up are identified Yufrizal, 2007 :
a Full comprehension of message being confirmed, e.g.:
Student A : On the top of cooker Student B : Pardon?
Student A : On the top of the cooker. Student B : Yes, on the top of the cooker.
b Continuation move The interlocutor change their topic after a process of trigger-signal-response,
e.g: Student A : I think like a suit, us, usual.
Student B : Like usual suit ? Student A : Yes, usual suit.
Student B : Does the man smoke ? Follow-up continuing move
Varonis and Gass 1985 proposed a simpler model for exchanges that create negotiation of meaning. The model consist of four primes called:
a Trigger T which invokes or stimulates incomplete understanding on the part of the hearer.
b Indicator I, which is hearer’s signal of incomplete understanding.
c Response R is the original speaker’s attempt to clear up the unaccepted-input. d Reaction to the response RR, which is an element that signal’s hearer
acceptance or continued difficulty with the speaker’s repair. In the development of studies in negotiation of meaning, Alcon, Shortreed, martyn
and Van Den Branden have broadened the concept of negotiation of meaning, such as by inserting some ideas from studies in communication strategies into the
basic concept of negotiation of meaning. Alcon 1996 in Yufrizal 2007 p.19, for instance, included some elements of
communication strategies in their studies of negotiation of meaning, such as appeals for assistance, appeals for verification of meaning, definition request,
appeals indicating lexical uncertainty for the component of signals; foreignization, literal translation, code switching, approximation for responses. Another extension
of negotiation of meaning is by Van Den Branden 1997 who distinguished three definitions of negotiation: negotiation of meaning, negotiation of form and
negotiation of content. Firstly, Branden 1997 in Yufrizal 2007, p.19 defines negotiation of meaning as
side sequences to the main flow of conversation aimed at signalling and solving problems of message comprehensibility that is aimed at restoring mutual
understanding. Under this category, Branden divides the negotiation of meaning into two elements: indicator and response. The indicator includes clarification
request, confirmation of request with trigger unmodified, confirmation of request with trigger modified, non verbal indicator. The response includes switch to the
new topic, repetition of trigger, modification of trigger, repetition of indicator,
modification of indicator, confirm of negate indicator, inability to respond, ignore the indicator, respon unnecessary.
Secondly, Branden 1997 defined the negotiation of form as side sequences to main flow of conversation aimed at drawing the participant’s attention to formal
aspect of description, and encouraging „ self repair’ or, at the very least, acknowledgment of the formal modifications that the listener suggested. The
negotiation of form also consists of two elements: indicator and response. The indicator includes request of rephrasal, prompt, confirmation request unmodified,
confirmation modified, and metalinguistic comment. The response includes repetition of trigger, modification of trigger, repetition of indicator, modification
of indicator, confirmation of negation of indicator, inability to respond, ignore indicator, and response unnecessary.
Thridly, Branden negotiation of content as stretches of interaction aim at pushing
the participants to provide more information spontaneously offered in the description. This type of modification also consist of two elements: indicator and
responses. The indicator includes clarification request, confirmation request unmodified, confirmation request modified, and confirmation request elaborated.
The response includes giving additional information, repetition of trigger,
modification of trigger, repetition of indicator, modification of indicator, confirm or negate indicator, inability to respond, ignore to indicator, response unnecessary,
and switch to a new topic.
2.5 The Roles of Negotiation of Meaning in Second Language Acquisition
Pica 1996 inYufrizal admited that although there has been no empirical evidence of a direct link between negotiation of meaning and second foreign language
development, research studies in negotiation of meaning for the last two decades have shown that there are two obvious contributions of negotiation of meaning to
second language acquisition. Firstly through negotiation of meaning particularly in interactions involving native speakers non native speaker obtain
comprehensible input necessary for second language acqusition much more frequently than in interaction without negotiation of meaning. Secondly,
negotiation of meaning provides opportunities for nonnative speaker to comprehensible output necessary for second language acquisition much more
frequently than in interactions without negotiarion of meaning. Another important role of negotiation of meaning which may not have a direct impact on second
language acquisition but it is also an important element for second language learning through communication is that negotiation of meaning can function as an
indication of pursuit of communication.
2.6 Negotiation of Meaning in Second and Foreign Language Setting
The majority of interaction studies deals with interaction involving native speakers and non native speakers hasbeen conducted in the target language
setting. A set of research papers by Pica 1985a; 1985b; Pica and Doughty, 1985, 1986; Pica, young and Doughty, 1987; Pica et al. 1989; Pica et al, 1991 and
Pica et al 1996 has shown that when non native speakers indicate that they do not understand message, expressed through comments such as’ pardon me’,
Kategori